Brain protective effect of dexmedetomidine vs propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in non-brain injured patients

被引:1
|
作者
Yuan, Hong-Xun [1 ]
Zhang, Li-Na [2 ]
Li, Gang [1 ,3 ]
Qiao, Li [1 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ, Intens Care Unit, Int Hosp, Beijing 102206, Peoples R China
[2] Capital Med Univ, Affiliated Beijing Chaoyang Hosp, Cent Operating Room, Beijing 100020, Peoples R China
[3] Peking Univ, Int Hosp, Intens Care Unit, 1 Life Pk Rd,Zhongguancun Life Sci Pk, Beijing 102206, Peoples R China
来源
WORLD JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY | 2024年 / 14卷 / 03期
关键词
Dexmedetomidine; Propofol; Sedation; Prolonged mechanical ventilation; Brain protective; MIDAZOLAM;
D O I
10.5498/wjp.v14.i3.370
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND Dexmedetomidine and propofol are two sedatives used for long-term sedation. It remains unclear whether dexmedetomidine provides superior cerebral protection for patients undergoing long-term mechanical ventilation. AIM To compare the neuroprotective effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury. METHODS Patients who underwent mechanical ventilation for > 72 h were randomly assigned to receive sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was used to evaluate sedation effects, with a target range of -3 to 0. The primary outcomes were serum levels of S100-beta and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) every 24 h. The secondary outcomes were remifentanil dosage, the proportion of patients requiring rescue sedation, and the time and frequency of RASS scores within the target range. RESULTS A total of 52 and 63 patients were allocated to the dexmedetomidine group and propofol group, respectively. Baseline data were comparable between groups. No significant differences were identified between groups within the median duration of study drug infusion [52.0 (IQR: 36.0-73.5) h vs 53.0 (IQR: 37.0-72.0) h, P = 0.958], the median dose of remifentanil [4.5 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) mu g/kg/h vs 4.6 (IQR: 4.0-5.0) mu g/kg/h, P = 0.395], the median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation [85.6% (IQR: 65.8%-96.6%) vs 86.7% (IQR: 72.3%-95.3), P = 0.592], and the median frequency within the target RASS range without rescue sedation [72.2% (60.8%-91.7%) vs 73.3% (60.0%-100.0%), P = 0.880]. The proportion of patients in the dexmedetomidine group who required rescue sedation was higher than in the propofol group with statistical significance (69.2% vs 50.8%, P = 0.045). Serum S100-beta and NSE levels in the propofol group were higher than in the dexmedetomidine group with statistical significance during the first six and five days of mechanical ventilation, respectively (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine demonstrated stronger protective effects on the brain compared to propofol for long-term mechanical ventilation in patients without brain injury.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam or Propofol for Sedation During Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation Two Randomized Controlled Trials
    Jakob, Stephan M.
    Ruokonen, Esko
    Grounds, R. Michael
    Sarapohja, Toni
    Garratt, Chris
    Pocock, Stuart J.
    Bratty, J. Raymond
    Takala, Jukka
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (11): : 1151 - 1160
  • [2] SEDATION IN PATIENTS WITH TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, PROPOFOL VS DEXMEDETOMIDINE
    Tarabrin, O.
    Shcherbakov, S.
    Gavrichenko, D.
    Mazurenko, G.
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2014, 40 : S96 - S97
  • [3] A Comparison of Functional Outcomes for Brain Injured and Non-Brain Injured Patients
    Williams, Natasha
    Turner-Stokes, Lynne
    Ramdharry, Gita
    BRAIN INJURY, 2012, 26 (4-5) : 317 - 317
  • [4] Mechanical Ventilation in Brain Injured Patients
    Robba, Chiara
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2021, 168 : S90 - S90
  • [5] Comparison of dexmedetomidine and propofol for sedation in patients with traumatic brain injury
    O Tarabrin
    S Shcherbakov
    D Gavrychenko
    G Mazurenko
    Critical Care, 18 (Suppl 1):
  • [6] Cerebral Autoregulation in Non-Brain Injured Patients: A Systematic Review
    Longhitano, Yaroslava
    Iannuzzi, Francesca
    Bonatti, Giulia
    Zanza, Christian
    Messina, Antonio
    Godoy, Daniel
    Dabrowski, Wojciech
    Li Xiuyun
    Czosnyka, Marek
    Pelosi, Paolo
    Badenes, Rafael
    Robba, Chiara
    FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY, 2021, 12
  • [7] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation
    Ruokonen, Esko
    Parviainen, Ilkka
    Jakob, Stephan M.
    Nunes, Silvia
    Kaukonen, Maija
    Shepherd, Stephen T.
    Sarapohja, Toni
    Bratty, J. Raymond
    Takala, Jukka
    INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2009, 35 (02) : 282 - 290
  • [8] Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation
    Esko Ruokonen
    Ilkka Parviainen
    Stephan M. Jakob
    Silvia Nunes
    Maija Kaukonen
    Stephen T. Shepherd
    Toni Sarapohja
    J. Raymond Bratty
    Jukka Takala
    Intensive Care Medicine, 2009, 35 : 282 - 290
  • [9] Sedation with midazolam worsens the diaphragm function than dexmedetomidine and propofol during mechanical ventilation in rats
    Li, Shao-Ping
    Zhou, Xian-Long
    Zhao, Yan
    BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2020, 121
  • [10] Dexmedetomidine for sedation during non-invasive ventilation in pediatric patients
    Hungerford, James
    Venkatraman, Rasika
    Ramesh, Archana
    Hall, Mark
    Tobias, Joseph
    CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2013, 41 (12)